Laserfiche WebLink
staff has told the applicant on numerous occasions over <br />recent years that it is unlikely the City would allow building <br />oermits for his adjacent parcels. A similar application by Alden <br />Anderson at 1900 Shoreline Drive resulted in Council voting 4-0 <br />to deny separation of adjacent 1.4 acre and 1.8 acre commonly <br />owned parcels from each other» based on 1) lack of demonstrated <br />hardship; 2) no sanitary sewer available; 3) insufficient area; <br />4) insufficient width. I have included the draft resolution from <br />this application, which should help to clarify the City’s past <br />position on applications of this type (note that the Anderson <br />resolution was never adopted because he withdrew his application <br />after Council voted to have staff draft a denial resolution). <br />I have included the tax history for 1974-1985 on the <br />properties (see Exhibit J). It is noteworthy that the valuation <br />of the parcel in question (P.I.D. 0007) was reduced starting in <br />1983, and the parcel was assessed increment^ 1 ly as compared to <br />the parcel with the house; i.e. the adjacent parcels appear to be <br />valued as part of the main lot, not as separate building sites. <br />Because Mr. Ferrell insisted on bringing this application to <br />you even though he was told of the slim chances for approval, <br />staff accepted the application on an appeal/interpretation basis. <br />Does the Planning Commission find any hardship or circumstance <br />that would suggest the standards should not apply to this <br />property?